Are Military Cops Covered Under HR 218?

The reason I bring this subject up is that I recently received a message from a PL member that was sent out to the members of a group that was restricted to LEO’s only. In this message this person stated that military police where not covered under HR 218 also known as LEOSA, now I have looked up HR 218/ LEOSA and it does not specifically state that military police are exempt from it, but it also does not state that we are covered under it as well. My interpretation of HR 218 is that because I received my diploma from the Navy Master-At-Arms “A” school which makes me a LEO, and that I qualify with my firearms every six months, I have a photo ID, and a badge, that I am covered. So what I am asking is what does the PL community think about this subject?

A police officer has to qualify from the department he/she retired from or is an active member of. After passing he /she receives an HR218 card which in New York is his/her retired ID card with the endorsement placed on the card. As you said I see nothing in the bill that deals with the Military Police. Perhaps the provost marshall can give you details or you can try and contact a legislature in your area. Wish I could be of more help. Good luck and btw, most of the agencies I am involved with the Leo's are having trouble due to liability issues.

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

I looked and did not find any info on PL in regards to HR 218 and military police. Now let me correct you on some information you posted. One the Coast Guard is not part of the Department Of Defense; they are Homeland Security and are not covered under the Posse Comitatus Act. And two HR218 does not state that the firearm has to be department issued. Three the Posse Comitatus Act states that the Army and Air Force cannot be used to enforce civilian laws outside of there jurisdiction, and the Secretary of the Navy has put the same restriction on the Navy and Marine Corps but has the authority to make exceptions, military police do enforce civilian laws within there jurisdiction on civilian thanks to title 18 USC and the Assimilative Crime Act, which gives the DOD the power to adopt local and state laws as there own turning them into federal laws on federal property. Now my questions still stands are military police in accordance with HR218 covered to carry concealed off duty?

The issue of whether military law enforcement personnel are covered under LEOSA (formerly HR218) or not, has been discussed and researched to death.

The ONLY DoD law enforcement personnel who are covered under LEOSA are the following:

1. CIVILIAN special agents of the DCIO's (Army CID, Air Force OSI, Navy and Marine Corps NCIS, and DoD DCIS). Military special agents of the above are not covered. Neither are special agents of the DoD intelligence services.

2. Sworn officers of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, and the NSA police, who have statutory powers of arrest under the U.S. Code.

Again, NO military personnel are covered under LEOSA, no matter whether or not they perform law enforcement or investigative duties, or no matter whether they are issued a badge or credentials.

And NO civilian base police officers working for the military services (sometimes called DoD police) are covered, since they do not have statutory powers of arrest either. They have the same authority to "apprehend" as MP's and posted sentries.

No statutory powers of arrest = no LEOSA. The ability to "apprehend" military personnel under the UCMJ, and deliver them to their commanding officer, does not qualify. Every E-1 or civilian security guard posted around an armory or walking around a motor pool has the UCMJ ability to "apprehend."

Sorry to disappoint the honorable LE persons in the military or working for the military, but the above is the truth, under federal law, DoD and service regulations.

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

(which military does not have off duty, and the military does not have powers of arrest, they detain)

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm; (qualification is with assigned weapon, which you can not carry off the installation)

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. (Military does not issue)

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.

(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification [emphasis added] issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

Military ID card does not identify you as anything other then an active duty soldier, sailor or airman

As a former Military Police, platoon sergeant, in the other threads on this site that I responded to, I also made the point that military police are not police while off duty, they are simply soldiers and sailors. UCMJ does not give them police powers when not acting in their official capacity. Civilian LEOs have full powers on and off duty and are able to and usually required to carry their duty weapon off duty.

United States Military Police are prohibited from enacting state police powers and domestic peace officer powers under the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law passed in 1878. MPs may enforce certain limited powers, such as traffic stops, on access roads and other federal property not necessarily within the boundaries of their military base or installation. The only way MPs are allowed to enforce law and order outside of the military realm as stated above is when Martial Law is in effect. When combined, the Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act both severely limit and delay Presidential power in using the military in a law enforcement capacity. This allows the state more time to use their resources and authorities to the fullest extent, allowing for the possibility of military involvement only when their resources have been completely used up.

The only military branch exempt from the act is the United States Coast Guard, as they are both military personnel and federal law enforcement officers with full federal jurisdiction.

Although the 109th Congress attempted to extend the authority of the military in "major public emergencies" (Section 1068 of 2006 Amendment to Insurrection Act of 1806), the amendment was repealed, in its entirety, in 2008. Section 1076 of the amendment would have allowed the President, upon his declaration of a public emergency, to not only station the military anywhere in the United States, but to also take control of United States National Guard units without the consent of the state's governor or any local authorities.

United States Senator Patrick Leahy, who enacted the legislation to revert the act to its previous state (as it was created and intended to be in 1807), stated, "We certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government – one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders." [4]

The reason I bring this subject up is that I recently received a message from a PL member that was sent out to the members of a group that was restricted to LEO’s only. In this message this person stated that military police where not covered under HR 218 also known as LEOSA, now I have looked up HR 218/ LEOSA and it does not specifically state that military police are exempt from it, but it also does not state that we are covered under it as well. My interpretation of HR 218 is that because I received my diploma from the Navy Master-At-Arms “A” school which makes me a LEO, and that I qualify with my firearms every six months, I have a photo ID, and a badge, that I am covered. So what I am asking is what does the PL community think about this subject?

Well.....the weapon does not have to be issued by the department and you are not required to have powers of arrest off duty.

You must qualify with the weapon or weapons that you will carry and you must have statutory powers of arrest while in the performance of your duties. Retired personnel must qualify with their weapons and most do not carry their formerly issued sidearm. I am currently qualified with two different handguns and can add as many as I want as long as I pass the departments range qual with them every ninety days. Most agencies do not require you to carry a firearm off duty. There was recent article on that subject several months ago or posssibly a year ago. I apologize that I do not have the specific information but it is out there.

I am not commenting on any legal authority for military police and HR 218 as I have zero knowledge of whether they are authorized or not.

DID you read HR 218 above you are wrong. You have to have powers of arrest

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

I'm done with this thread. I wish you folks the best of luck if you choose to excercise HR 218 as MP's. Hey here is an idea go ask your commanders and see what they say about it.

I'm out, I will be back shortly to lock this.

I agree that any MP should ask their command staff or military legal staff. I don't agree with locking a thread just because no one agrees with you on the interpretation of HR 218. It is still being tested and this is a good debate.

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
-Psalms 23

jdso403 and HCGale are correct. The simple answer is NO. This is not a reflection or comment on Military Police in any way, it is simply a fact of law. There is talk of amending HR218 to include certain members of the Military Police. They cannot and will not make it blanket for MP's or SP's or AP's for the simple reason that many members of the Armed Forces are assigned to these duties on a TAD basis plus the laws between civilians and military are very different and the military can do much more to their people then they can to civilians and they can do nothing to civilians off a military reservation except as a civilian themselves. You can argue until the cows come home but if you are armed while you are off-duty in civilian clothing and do not have a State Issued CCW permit, you will be arrested for CCW, it is the law and unless or until they change it, we will have to live with it.

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

I looked and did not find any info on PL in regards to HR 218 and military police. Now let me correct you on some information you posted. One the Coast Guard is not part of the Department Of Defense; they are Homeland Security and are not covered under the Posse Comitatus Act. And two HR218 does not state that the firearm has to be department issued. Three the Posse Comitatus Act states that the Army and Air Force cannot be used to enforce civilian laws outside of there jurisdiction, and the Secretary of the Navy has put the same restriction on the Navy and Marine Corps but has the authority to make exceptions, military police do enforce civilian laws within there jurisdiction on civilian thanks to title 18 USC and the Assimilative Crime Act, which gives the DOD the power to adopt local and state laws as there own turning them into federal laws on federal property. Now my questions still stands are military police in accordance with HR218 covered to carry concealed off duty?

Sorry to disagree but this thread SHOULD NOT be locked. It does provide valuable info that others may not locate this information. This could prevent a military LEO from getting arrested when they think that it is okay for them to CCW. Remember that many of our brothers and sisters came up from the military!

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

KSP is correct- day to day MP's are NOT covered under HR 218...how ever because of a court ruling the coast Guard is. I would not want to be the MP that has to challenge this in a court- because I think that you would lose. SO again...MP's are not covered under HR 218 as it reads and stands today.

Sometimes in this world there is Justice,..and sometimes there is JUST US..
~The Thin Blue Line- Our Blood Runs Blue~

Ok now that we have beaten the horse to death, let me ask this question. The ideals behind HR218 where to allow Law Enforcement Officers to conceal carry off duty outside of there jurisdiction and across state lines to protect themselves and others if and when a situation occurred that would require them to use deadly force. Now many Army and Marine Corps Military Police, Navy Master-At-Arms, and Air Force Security Forces, conduct traditional LEO duties and are not TAD to that duty, they have gone through the technical/ “A” schools, they have extensive training, and are extremely qualified, putting aside that they cannot enforce law over civilians when off base, the question is should MP’s, MA’s, and SF’s be covered by HR 218/ LEOSA?

Side Note: I do not wish to go into someone else’s backyard and play cop, I am just curious to understand this subject further; it is a very broad and unclear subject “due to the wording of HR 218”. It has been left to be interpreted by many. I thank everyone who has contributed to this thread; your input is much appreciated.

I agree with DJW739. Why would a member of the military want to go play LEO in someone else's backyard? If you don't have enough to do in your own jurisdiction i know of a few installations that will keep you pretty busy. I've been an MP for 12 nearly 13 years now. 3 of those years i wasn't allowed to carry concealed anyway due to my age. Now that i'm older, all i worry about is can i carry concealed lawfully in the state i'm living/travelling in. I have no desire to be an LEO outside of my jurisdiction. You're just asking for a lawsuit. Unless of course your intimately familiar with that jurisdictions laws and ordanances.

Paul I read the link and I didn't see anything stating that the HR 218 is available for on duty or retired military personal, I do have a HR 218 given to me by the State of Florida some years ago, it's a CCW nothing to different from a civilian CCW, I'm not going to agree or disagree my point is, What's the point!

P.S. As my PM to you if I'm wrong since being out of the loop over 17 years, I'll amend my post a.s.a.p.

Your Bud!!!

RALPH'S CHANNEL ON VEETLE.COM
http://veetle.com/index.php/channel/view#4d45b205a60f2
Cool 101 Kalamazoo Oldies Station 103
http://www.wqxc.com/
A Cool Website On History In Photos Of The New York City Police Department!
http://www.policeny.com/
Police Pulse!
http://www.policepulse.com/main/invitation/new
Policevets!
http://www.policevets.org/

Another Side Note: I would also like to add that in no way would I as should no one, take anyone's personal opinion on this subject as consent to violate the law in regards to conceal carry laws. I would not being doing my job as a responsible LEO if I did not put this out there. It has never been my intent to gain approval or consent from the PL/ LEO community to carry concealed under HR 218/LEOSA, I do follow the law’s concerning concealed carry in any state in which I visit or am stationed as should all MP’s, MA’s, and SF’s, or any LEO for that matter. I do hope that this statement clarifies my intentions on this topic.

Despite all the people who asked me to lock this as well as my own belief that it has run it's course I got some pretty heated PM's about my locking it so lets just open it back up for a bit and see if we can learn anything new that hasn't already been stated. I am currently in the process of speaking with a JAG attorney about the matter since those of us Military and civilian LEOs can't give an adequate answer. I'm sure TheSarge will make a comment again on the matter.